Bugayong v.

Ginez
No. L-10033, December 28, 1956
Leano, J. / KMD
SUBJECT MATTER: Concepts on Legal Separation; Defenses; Condonation
CASE SUMMARY:
In this case, Bugayong, a US Navy, married Ginez while on a vacation leave. Before he rut
DOCTRINES:
Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for legal separation or, as stated
in I Bouviers Law Dictionary, p. 585, condonation is the conditional forgiveness or remission, by a
husband or wife of a matrimonial offense which the latter has committed.
Art. 100 it says,The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has
been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders,
legal separation can not be claimed by either of them. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal
separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.

FACTS:
This is a case for legal separation filed in the Court of First Instance Pangasinan. CFI dismissed
the case, taking condonation as a ground for dismissal.
Plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals Tribunal, but because there was absolutely no
question of fact involved, the case was referred to the Supreme Court. The very facts testified to
by plaintiffhusband were assumed to be true.
Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the United States Navy, married the defendant Leonila
Ginez on August 27, 1949, at Asingan, Pangasinan, while on vacation leave.
Before Bugayong returned to work, he and his wife agreed that Leonila would stay with his
sisters.
On July 1951, Leonila Ginez left the house of Bugayongs sister and lived with her mother in
Asingan, Pangasinan. She then later moved to Dagupan City to study in a local college.
Also on the same month, July 1951, Bugayong began receiving letters from Valeriana Polangco
(plaintiffs sister-inlaw) and some from anonymous writers (which were not produced at the
hearing) informing him of alleged acts of infidelity of his wife. His wife also informed him by
letter that a certain Eliong kissed her.
October, 1951, Bugayong sought the advice of the Navy Chaplain and Navy legal department
regarding the propriety legal separation between him and his wife due to latters alleged acts of
infidelity.
However in August 1952, Bugayong went to Asingan, Pangasinan to look for his wife.
When they met, they went to the house of Bugayongs cousin where they stayed and lived for 2
nights and 1 day as husband and wife.

He also tried to verify from his wife the truth of the information he received that she had
committed adultery, but Leonila merely packed up and left instead of answering him.
Bugayong also exerted efforts to locate her and failing to find her, he went to Bacarra, Ilocos
Norte, to soothe his wounded feelings.
On November 18, 1952, Bugayong filed in the CFI-Pangasinan a complaint for legal separation
against wife.
o The wife denied the averments of the complaint and set up affirmative defenses.
o Since reconciliation was not possible, the court set the case for hearing on June 9, 1953.
The wife file a motion to dismiss based on the following grounds:
o (1) Assuming arguendo the truth of the allegations of the commission of acts of
infidelity amounting to adultery, the cause of action is barred by the statute of
limitations;
o (2) That under the same assumption, the acts charged have been condoned by the
plaintiff husband; and
o (3) That the complaint failed to state a cause of action sufficient for this court to render a
valid judgment.
CFI ordered the dismissal of the action.
Motion for reconsideration filed by Bugayong was denied.
The case was taken up for review to the Court of Appeals but since there was no question of facts
in the brief, only questions of law, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
1) WON the lower court erred in entertaining condonation as a ground for dismissal of
the case for legal separation. (NO)
HOLDING:
1.) NO, the lower court did not err in entertaining condonation as a ground for dismissal of the case for
the legal separation of Bugayong and his wife.
The court considered Bugayongs line of conduct under the assumption that he really believed his
wife guilty of adultery. However, with such state of mind, he went to Pangasinan in August 1952 and
looked for his wife. Also after finding her, they lived together as husband and wife for 2 nights and 1 day,
after which he tried to verify from her the truth about her infidelity, but failed to attain his purpose
because his wife, instead of answering his query on the matter, preferred to desert him, probably enraged
for being subjected to such humiliation. And yet he tried to locate her, though in vain.
Although no acts of infidelity might have been committed by the wife, the court agreed with the trial
judge that the conduct of the plaintiff husband above narrated despite his belief that his wife was
unfaithful, deprives him, as alleged the offended spouse, of any action for legal separation against the
offending wife, because his said conduct comes within the restriction of Article 100 of the Civil Code.

The only general rule in American jurisprudence is that any cohabitation with the guilty party, after the
commission of the offense, and with the knowledge or belief on the part of the injured party of its
commission, will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation; but this presumption may be rebutted by
evidence (60 L.J. Prob. 73).
There is no merit in the contention of appellant that the lower court erred in entertaining condonation as a
ground for dismissal inasmuch as same was not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss, because in
the case at bar, the question of condonation was raised in the second ground of the motion to dismiss. It is
true that it was filed after the answer and after the hearing had been commenced, yet that motion serves to
supplement the averments of defendants answer and to adjust the issues to the testimony of plaintiff
himself (Section 4, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court).

CFI judgment AFFIRMED.